Individual-level Outcomes of Talent Management: Assumptions versus Evidence

Abstract

Assumptions about employee reactions are currently driving much of the debate around talent management (TM). It is unclear, however, to what extent evidence from studies on employee reactions to TM supports the claim that TM generally leads to ‘positive’ outcomes for employees identified as talents, and to ‘negative’ outcomes for employees not identified as talents. This systematic review critically evaluates these assumptions both theoretically and empirically. Our analysis of the available empirical evidence shows that TM practices and (formal or perceived) talent status are generally associated with positive affect (e.g., commitment, satisfaction); with increased beliefs in KSAs; with higher performance; and with lower turnover intentions. However, our review also finds negative affective (i.e., stress, insecurity, identity struggles) and cognitive (i.e., psychological contract imbalance and breach) reactions in talents. No clear evidence is found in the literature as concerns negative reactions to TM among non-talents. We position our review findings in an integrative framework based on social exchange theory, and extend the theoretical underpinnings of the basic assumptions made in the TM literature with four elements: power, uncertainty, social identity, and social comparison. We conclude with specific recommendations for further research and for TM practice.